By Lionel Bopage, Siraj Perera, Nimal Chandrasena, and Jayantha Dassanayake –

The discussion surrounding the potential adoption of nuclear energy by Sri Lanka has gained traction in recent months. The current National People’s Power (NPP) government in Sri Lanka has expressed support for integrating nuclear energy into the country’s long-term energy strategy as a means to diversify and strengthen the nation’s energy infrastructure.

However, before embracing such a significant leap, it is imperative to weigh the many complexities and challenges associated with nuclear power. Given the current energy landscape in Sri Lanka, along with the socio-economic, environmental, and technical challenges that would come with introducing nuclear energy, it is clear that nuclear power is not a prudent course of action for the country at this time. Below are several compelling reasons why Sri Lanka should refrain from embarking on a policy of adopting nuclear energy.

1. Unaffordability and High Initial Costs

The financial burden of developing nuclear energy infrastructure is staggering. Building a single nuclear power plant typically costs between $6-9 billion, and the construction timeline often exceeds 30 years. For a country already grappling with economic challenges, including high national debt and frequent fiscal deficits, such an investment would strain public finances. The long-term operational costs—including fuel procurement, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning—would further exacerbate this economic burden.

By comparison, the cost of generating electricity from solar and wind energy has plummeted in recent years. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the global average cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity dropped by 82% between 2010 and 2020. Sri Lanka can achieve faster and more cost-effective energy security by prioritising these rapidly advancing technologies rather than committing to the exorbitant and uncertain costs of nuclear energy.

2. Lack of Domestic Expertise and Infrastructure

Nuclear energy requires highly specialised knowledge, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks—none of which currently exist in Sri Lanka. Developing a nuclear energy program would necessitate the import of costly technology and skilled personnel. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), establishing the necessary legal, regulatory, and safety frameworks for nuclear energy can take over a decade, requiring significant financial and human resource investments. This dependency on foreign expertise not only compromises Sri Lanka’s energy sovereignty but also poses long-term risks in managing and maintaining nuclear facilities, especially during geopolitical or economic crises, where external support may be delayed or restricted.

Furthermore, the lack of existing nuclear research institutions or technical universities with nuclear engineering programs highlights the steep learning curve Sri Lanka would face. Countries like India and China, which have developed nuclear power over decades, still rely heavily on international collaborations to manage complex aspects of their programs. Sri Lanka, starting from scratch, would be at an even greater disadvantage, making nuclear energy an impractical and risky pursuit.

3. The Challenge of Managing Nuclear Waste

Perhaps one of the most alarming aspects of nuclear energy is the management of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for thousands of years, and there are no viable long-term solutions for its safe storage. A small country like Sri Lanka, with limited land space and resources, would be hard-pressed to establish a secure and isolated facility for nuclear waste disposal. Countries with advanced nuclear programs, such as the United States and Japan, continue to face unresolved issues regarding nuclear waste disposal. For instance, the Yucca Mountain project in the U.S., intended to serve as a permanent repository, has been mired in political and technical controversies for decades. Sri Lanka, with far fewer resources and technical capabilities, would struggle to manage these challenges effectively, making nuclear energy a hazardous and unsustainable choice. This issue poses an existential threat to Sri Lanka’s environment and the well-being of its population for generations to come.

4. Safety Concerns and Global Risk Factors

The safety of nuclear power plants is of paramount importance, and even small lapses can have catastrophic consequences. While advances in nuclear technology have made plants safer, the risks of accidents—whether due to human error, natural disasters, or technical failures—remain a pressing concern. Given Sri Lanka’s vulnerability to natural disasters, such as tsunamis, landslides and floods, the risk of a nuclear catastrophe is heightened. Climate change will no doubt magnify the impacts of natural disasters. The ongoing global concerns regarding nuclear safety, particularly in light of incidents such as the Fukushima disaster, should give the Sri Lankan government pause. It is not only about the risks of a potential accident but also the long-term environmental damage that could occur in the event of a nuclear crisis.

Moreover, Sri Lanka is a small country with a high population density—over 340 people per square kilometre – which means that any nuclear incident could result in significant displacement and long-term socio-economic disruption. Locating a nuclear plant along the coastline will mean displacement of communities, their livelihood, culture, heritage as well as the natural environment.

A nuclear facility might deter tourism, a critical economic sector for Sri Lanka, particularly if the site is located near popular coastal regions. Nuclear disasters, even if rare, can contaminate agricultural lands and water sources, jeopardizing food security and exports.

5. Long-Term Commitment with Uncertain Benefits

Nuclear power is not a short-term solution; it is a long-term commitment. As mentioned, building a nuclear plant can take 30 to 40 years, and even after construction, the plant requires years of operation before it begins to pay back its enormous costs. This extended time frame means that nuclear energy will not contribute meaningfully to addressing the country’s current energy needs. Given the rapid advancements in renewable energy technologies, including breakthroughs in battery storage and grid integration, it is likely that more cost-effective and efficient alternatives will emerge during this time frame. For instance, countries like Germany and Denmark are phasing out nuclear power in favour of renewable energy, citing economic and environmental advantages. Sri Lanka should learn from these global trends and avoid locking itself into a costly and outdated energy model. By focusing on short-term, scalable solutions such as solar microgrids and offshore wind farms, Sri Lanka can address its energy needs more sustainably. It is also unclear whether nuclear power will still be economically viable or necessary in a few decades, making it an uncertain investment.

6. A Strong Renewable Energy Base

Sri Lanka already has a solid foundation in renewable energy, particularly through hydropower. As of recent estimates, hydropower accounts for approximately 45% of the country’s total energy mix. This renewable energy source is not only abundant but also relatively cost-effective. In addition, there is significant untapped hydropower potential within the country that could be harnessed. While the country has been expanding its use of solar and wind energy in recent years, hydropower remains the cornerstone of the national energy supply. Expanding this renewable energy base should be the priority, rather than diverting resources toward the high costs and complexities of nuclear energy development.

For instance, the country receives abundant sunlight, averaging 5–6 kWh per square meter per day, making it an ideal location for scaling up solar energy projects. Similarly, wind energy potential, particularly in the northern and southeastern regions, has been estimated at over 20,000 MW. With technological advancements and decreasing costs of solar and wind installations, Sri Lanka can achieve its energy goals without the financial and environmental burdens of nuclear power.

Expanding renewable energy capacity can also spur local employment and innovation. For example, investing in small-scale community solar projects or expanding grid connectivity for wind farms can create thousands of jobs while improving energy access in rural areas. In contrast, diverting resources to nuclear energy would delay the development of these sustainable options.

7. Lack of Public Discourse and Transparency

Another crucial issue is the lack of public discourse on the matter. Nuclear energy is a highly controversial and complex issue that requires careful consideration and input from all segments of society. However, the proposed shift to nuclear power appears to be driven primarily by a select few academics and industry lobbyists, rather than through a transparent, national conversation. There has been no open, informed debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, nor have the people of Sri Lanka been given a platform to voice their opinions. The energy policy documents and recent comments from the Minister of Power and Energy do not reflect a democratic process, and this lack of public discourse raises concerns about the legitimacy of such a significant policy shift. Before committing to a nuclear energy program, the government must engage in a full public consultation and allow the people to weigh in on this vital issue.

Conclusion

The idea of introducing nuclear energy in Sri Lanka is not without its allure—particularly in terms of providing a steady, large-scale energy supply. However, the numerous risks and challenges associated with nuclear energy far outweigh its potential benefits. Given Sri Lanka’s current reliance on renewable energy, its lack of expertise in nuclear technology, the astronomical costs involved, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste disposal, and the safety concerns, it would be unwise for the government to pursue a policy of adopting nuclear energy.

Rather than moving forward with nuclear energy, Sri Lanka should focus on expanding its existing renewable energy capacity, particularly hydropower, solar, and wind, while simultaneously investing in energy efficiency and storage solutions. The president, as the leader of the country, must make a clear and transparent decision to shelve any plans for adopting nuclear energy, and initiate a national discourse to ensure that the future of Sri Lanka’s energy policy is shaped by informed choices that prioritise the well-being of its people and environment.

About the authors:

Dr Lionel Bopage, Community Activist and Former Public Servant

Mr Siraj Perera, Civil Engineer and Former Public Servant, Victoria

Dr Nimal Chandrasena, Ecologist and A Concerned Citizen, and

Dr Jayantha Dassanayake, MAppS, PhD, Environmental and chronic disease Epidemiologist

Australia